Author: David Woodhouse Date: To: Ian Eiloart CC: exim-users, Zbigniew Szalbot, UCEPROTECT-Network Blacklistmaster of the day Subject: Re: [exim] UCEPROTECT Blacklists and why callouts are abusive
On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 16:09 +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote: > 1. People who bounce viruses with warning messages (actually, that's fine).
It's not fine to _bounce_ them -- they should be rejected. Generating
bounces in responses to viruses is bad.
> 2. People who use SRS. I'd like to use it for local people that ask to get
> email forwarded from their local (sussex.ac.uk) address to a personal
> address. I don't see how SRS can harm anyone when I do this. Perhaps such
> email would never hit their honeypots, though.
Why would you do SRS unconditionally? If you really must do SRS because
a recipient's mail is bouncing and they cannot or will not fix the
broken destination to which you're forwarding, _then_ you can enable SRS
on mail forwarded to _that_ host/domain, if you really care to work
around the recipient's brain damage.
But as you say, that would be very unlikely to ever hit the UCEPROTECT
honeypot.
> 3. People using sender verification callouts. They seem to think it's as
> bad as sending email, but my sender verification callouts don't fill
> mailboxes or server queues. And, they do stop lots of spam.
Yeah, this is just the UCEPROTECT folks being muppets. I'm with Nigel;
they're best ignored.
